In this appeal under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the application challenging the cognizance order under the POCSO Act, finding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's decision to exclude the defence document at that stage.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; impugned cognizance order affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2892 of 2023
Applicant :- Deepak Sharma Alias Goldi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Rajeev Goswami
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant is assailing the legality and validity of the cognizance order dated 29.11.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 1 Mathura dismissing the application no. 10 Kha in Sessions Trial No. 1017 of 2021 (State Vs. Deepak @ Goldy and Another) under sections 302 IPC, P.s. Kotwali, District Mathura.
I have perused the order impugned learned Additional Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 1 Mathura while disposing of the application has clearly mentioned that the case proposed the document by which the applicant wants to contradict from PW-1 is a defence document and could be placed at the time of defence.
Sri Rajeev Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant is argued that this is the stage whereby those documents could be placed before the court and PW-1 may be asked to accept contradict of those documents.
I have perused the order impugned and reasoning adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 1 Mathura, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order impugned hence the present 482 application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 17.2.2023 Vikram
Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cognizance order passed by the Trial Court is illegal or perverse.
Whether documents excluded during cognizance can be placed before the court during defence stage.
Deepak Sharma Alias Goldi
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
